[NEWS] -- Is Star Trek Over?

70 views
Skip to first unread message

Stan Jensen

unread,
May 13, 2004, 4:10:25 PM5/13/04
to
Is Star Trek Over?

A third year of shrinking audiences for UPN's Star Trek: Enterprise means
potential cancellation, which would make the 2004-'05 season the first in
17 years without a first-run Star Trek series, USA Today reported. Coupled
with the poor box-office return for 2002's feature film Star Trek: Nemesis,
fans of the Paramount franchise face the prospect of no new Star Trek on
the near horizon for the first time in a quarter-century, the newspaper
reported.

Longtime Trek executive producer Rick Berman remains sanguine about an
Enterprise renewal. "Right now, I'm optimistic the show is going to be
picked up for a fourth season," Berman told the newspaper. But, he added,
"as to whether [the franchise] could use a rest for a while, that's a valid
question. I think, eventually, Star Trek will be taking a breather."

UPN likely won't reveal Enterprise's fate until it announces its fall slate
next week. Viewership is off 43 percent from its first season, and the
series suffered its lowest-rated regularly scheduled original episode in
April (2.9 million), the newspaper reported.

Berman and two other producers also are in "very early discussions" about
another Star Trek feature film. It would be a prequel, but not related to
Enterprise, he said.


Eric Newman

unread,
May 13, 2004, 6:54:53 PM5/13/04
to
On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:10:25 GMT, Stan Jensen <sp...@wonderful.spam>
wrote:

Even if "Enterprise" is not renewed, that doesn't necessarily mean
Star Trek is "over." I'm sure the suits at Paramount will dredge it up
again at some point.

Apropos of Berman's acknowledging that maybe Star Trek needs a
breather, what might that mean in the event "Enterprise" lasts the
(seemingly) requisite seven years? There won't be a Star Trek series
on the air immediately afterward, and no overlapping like TNG/DS9 and
DS9/VOY?

Nwsy

unread,
May 13, 2004, 7:18:33 PM5/13/04
to

Remember how enthusiastic they were about Enterprise when it was still on
the drawing board? They seem to change their mind more often than my
4-year-old. Give it a couple of years, or until they've lost interest in
their side-projects.

--
Seen on a T-Shirt:
"It's a shame being stupid isn't painful"

>> http://hedgewitch.blogspot.com <<


Al Smith

unread,
May 13, 2004, 8:11:47 PM5/13/04
to
> Apropos of Berman's acknowledging that maybe Star Trek needs a
> breather, what might that mean in the event "Enterprise" lasts the
> (seemingly) requisite seven years? There won't be a Star Trek series
> on the air immediately afterward, and no overlapping like TNG/DS9 and
> DS9/VOY?

My own gut instinct is that "Enterprise" is going to last five
years. I don't see it going the distance. Five years should get it
into syndication.

McH72

unread,
May 13, 2004, 8:32:40 PM5/13/04
to
Stan Jensen <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in
news:6fl7a0liukkk304ol...@4ax.com:

> Longtime Trek executive producer Rick Berman remains sanguine about an
> Enterprise renewal. "Right now, I'm optimistic the show is going to be
> picked up for a fourth season," Berman told the newspaper. But, he
> added, "as to whether [the franchise] could use a rest for a while,
> that's a valid question. I think, eventually, Star Trek will be taking
> a breather."

Yeah. "A breather." That's what the franchise needs. Uh huh. Let's all
hope that "a breather" is code for "better writers and new producers."

Eric Newman

unread,
May 13, 2004, 9:50:39 PM5/13/04
to
On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:11:47 GMT, Al Smith <inv...@address.com>
wrote:

Well then by comparison to the other series -- each of which went
seven years -- it will be seen as less than successful. It might not
be fair, but that will be the perception.

Godzilla

unread,
May 13, 2004, 10:44:42 PM5/13/04
to
Stan Jensen wrote:

> Is Star Trek Over?

My wishes never come true. Please put this dog out of it's misery...

Bachophile

unread,
May 14, 2004, 12:29:51 AM5/14/04
to

shoot it! shoot it!


Al Smith

unread,
May 14, 2004, 2:32:27 AM5/14/04
to
>>My own gut instinct is that "Enterprise" is going to last five
>>>years. I don't see it going the distance. Five years should get it
>>>into syndication.
>
>
> Well then by comparison to the other series -- each of which went
> seven years -- it will be seen as less than successful. It might not
> be fair, but that will be the perception.

Yes, that will be the perception. And the reality, I guess, since
it isn't drawing the numbers the other series drew.

David Johnston

unread,
May 14, 2004, 3:23:43 AM5/14/04
to
On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:32:40 GMT, McH72 <nu...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

No. It's "The series goes off the air for 20 years so that when it
finally comes back, people are prepared to cut it the same slack
they were prepared to cut TNG."

ToolPackinMama

unread,
May 14, 2004, 7:43:21 AM5/14/04
to

Never mind that the original series didn't last beyond three seasons,
and nevertheless etc. etc.

Kurt Sample

unread,
May 14, 2004, 9:43:01 PM5/14/04
to
"Bachophile" <music_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3XXoc.125828$G_.4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...

You know - there are very few shows I look forward to every week,
Star Trek is one of them. I will not be happy if it is cancelled.

Message has been deleted

Marc Chapleau

unread,
May 14, 2004, 11:02:03 PM5/14/04
to

"Kurt Sample" <ksa...@pierce.ctc.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:9371beff.04051...@posting.google.com...

> You know - there are very few shows I look forward to every week,
> Star Trek is one of them.

Agree. Every StarTrek series of the franchise is very appealing to me.

For these guys who believe that there's no new Startrek fan for a long time,
i just want you to know that i saw my very first StarTrek show in 1969. I
was 6 years old. I was too young to enjoy it as i do know. So, i wasn't a
trekker.
In the 70s, i saw many reruns of TOS. I liked it fairly, but i cant say i
was a trekkie. When The motion pictures was released (in 1979), i wasn't
interested. So i did not watch it. When TWOK was released, i did not watch
it. When the third movie was released (The Search for Spock), when ti the
theatre and i did not enjoyed it anough to become a trekkie.
Years laters, TNG was released. Since i am a french speaking person, i was
waiting for translation because, at that time, i wasn't confortable with
english language.

In 2000, i decided to download the entire TNG series from Internet. I
became instantly a very big fan of StarTrek universe. So i did the same for
DS9 (thanks to IRC and Kazaa) and i was very disappointed with the series.
So i gave up.

September 26th, 2000, was downloading Broken Bow from the internet and i was
addicted to it instantly!
After 2 years of hesitation and bad critics reading, i decided to give a try
to Voyager and i loved it immediately! So i gave a second try to DS9 and a
third one :o) I finaly accepted the concept and, at the third season, i
liked DS9 very much.

I dont recall much of TOS, but i'll download the entire series this month.

So, as you can see, there's still new trekkers on our planet and i Like very
much Enterprise.

> I will not be happy if it is cancelled.

It would be a very bad news to me if ENT was cancelled.


Karl M.J. Kowert

unread,
May 14, 2004, 11:54:50 PM5/14/04
to
AS I STATED BEFORE:

IT TAKES GOOD WRITERS TO WRITE GOOD SHOWS.

IS STAR TREK OVER?? AS I AM GOING ON 43 YEARS AS OF AGE,
05-31-2004, I SAY YES.

WE AS A NATION, ON EARTH, WHO ARE TO STUPID TO REALIZE THE FINAL FRONTIER IS
STILL WAITING.

BACKWARD PAGAN RELIGION AND BACKWARD BUSH FAMILY POLITICS HAS MADE IT CLEAR
EVEN THAT "VENDETTA" IS THE WORD.

POLITICS SUCK. I FIGHT FOR AN AMERICA FOR SPACE EXPLORATION.

WHAT DID I GET?? A FUCKING STINKING BUSH NUMBER 2 AND A FUCKED UP B&B!!!


KMJK

TOO MANY DUMB F**KS ALL OVER THIS WORLD WE CALL EARTH.

Elvis Gump

unread,
May 15, 2004, 12:19:10 AM5/15/04
to
in article Tngpc.3116$UY4....@fe39.usenetserver.com, Karl M.J. Kowert at

Perhaps if you turn off the caps lock key and have something to calm
yourself down, like say a shot of sodium pentathol you might realize that
the world has always been pretty much like this.
--
"Who is wise? He that learns from everyone.
Who is powerful? He that governs his passions.
Who is rich? He who is content.
Who is that? Nobody.
-- Benjamin Franklin "Poor Richard's Almanack"

Anybody

unread,
May 15, 2004, 2:12:23 AM5/15/04
to
In article <BCCB046D.2A780%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com>, Elvis Gump
<elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:

> in article Tngpc.3116$UY4....@fe39.usenetserver.com, Karl M.J. Kowert at
> km...@open.org wrote on 05/14/2004 10:54 PM:
>
> > AS I STATED BEFORE:
> >
> > IT TAKES GOOD WRITERS TO WRITE GOOD SHOWS.
> >
> > IS STAR TREK OVER?? AS I AM GOING ON 43 YEARS AS OF AGE,
> > 05-31-2004, I SAY YES.
> >
> > WE AS A NATION, ON EARTH, WHO ARE TO STUPID TO REALIZE THE FINAL FRONTIER IS
> > STILL WAITING.
> >
> > BACKWARD PAGAN RELIGION AND BACKWARD BUSH FAMILY POLITICS HAS MADE IT CLEAR
> > EVEN THAT "VENDETTA" IS THE WORD.
> >
> > POLITICS SUCK. I FIGHT FOR AN AMERICA FOR SPACE EXPLORATION.
> >
> > WHAT DID I GET?? A FUCKING STINKING BUSH NUMBER 2 AND A FUCKED UP B&B!!!
> >
> >
> > KMJK
> >
> > TOO MANY DUMB F**KS ALL OVER THIS WORLD WE CALL EARTH.
>
> Perhaps if you turn off the caps lock key and have something to calm
> yourself down, like say a shot of sodium pentathol you might realize that
> the world has always been pretty much like this.

True. Everyone except me is an idiot. ;-)

Besides, the topic is wrong.

Star Trek IS not dead ... Star Trek WAS dead the minute Beavis &
Butthead took over and the final nail in the coffin was their insane
idea of creating a non-Trek Star Trek show. :-\

Marc Chapleau

unread,
May 15, 2004, 2:23:30 AM5/15/04
to

"Karl M.J. Kowert" <km...@open.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:Tngpc.3116$UY4....@fe39.usenetserver.com...
> AS I STATED BEFORE:

[Snip the psychotic bullshit]

1) Dont scream

2) dont swear

3) take your pills and dont be late to your electro-shock session, your
doctor wouldn't apreciate it.


David Johnston

unread,
May 15, 2004, 2:52:12 AM5/15/04
to
On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:54:50 -0700, "Karl M.J. Kowert" <km...@open.org>
wrote:

>AS I STATED BEFORE:
>
>IT TAKES GOOD WRITERS TO WRITE GOOD SHOWS.
>
>IS STAR TREK OVER?? AS I AM GOING ON 43 YEARS AS OF AGE,

And yet, you aren't mature enough to refrain from posting in all caps.


David Z

unread,
May 15, 2004, 1:23:19 PM5/15/04
to
"Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:150520041812237158%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...

"Number one, I order you to go take a number two."


VernonT

unread,
May 15, 2004, 2:32:45 PM5/15/04
to
"ToolPackinMama" <la...@lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:40A4B0D9...@lauragoodwin.org...

> > > Well then by comparison to the other series -- each of which went
> > > seven years -- it will be seen as less than successful. It might not
> > > be fair, but that will be the perception.
> >
> > Yes, that will be the perception. And the reality, I guess, since
> > it isn't drawing the numbers the other series drew.
>
> Never mind that the original series didn't last beyond three seasons,
> and nevertheless etc. etc.

And everyone involved with it say that TOS was a failed TV series.
If 38 years, and counting, is a failed series, here's for more failed ST
series. <raises glass>


VernonT

unread,
May 15, 2004, 2:47:15 PM5/15/04
to
"Karl M.J. Kowert" <km...@open.org> wrote in message
news:Tngpc.3116$UY4....@fe39.usenetserver.com...

>
> TOO MANY DUMB F**KS ALL OVER THIS WORLD WE CALL EARTH.


And you should know.
Troll


VernonT

unread,
May 15, 2004, 2:53:48 PM5/15/04
to
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:79Uoc.39745$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...

I've read that 4 years will get syndication. Even with the shortened
seasons.
Season 1 26 eps.
Season 2 26 eps.
Season 3 24 eps.
Season 4 ? 24 eps.
equals 100 total


Graham Kennedy

unread,
May 15, 2004, 3:17:26 PM5/15/04
to
VernonT wrote:

This is only a rule of thumb though; remember that the
success of TOS was based on syndication, and it only
ran to 78 episodes. Just about where Enterprise will
be when Season 3 finishes.

--
Graham Kennedy

Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org

Al Smith

unread,
May 15, 2004, 7:09:51 PM5/15/04
to
>>My own gut instinct is that "Enterprise" is going to last five
>>> years. I don't see it going the distance. Five years should get it
>>> into syndication.
>>>
>
>
> I've read that 4 years will get syndication. Even with the shortened
> seasons.
> Season 1 26 eps.
> Season 2 26 eps.
> Season 3 24 eps.
> Season 4 ? 24 eps.
> equals 100 total
>
>

They could get away with axing it after the forth season, but they
will probably want a few more episodes to round it out as a viable
syndication product. I think that's how the suits are looking at
"Enterprise" right now -- not for its present value, but its
future value, as part of the entire Trek franchise. If rating are
really bad next season, that might be the end, though.

Anybody

unread,
May 15, 2004, 11:51:30 PM5/15/04
to
In article <bmspc.40291$TT.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "David Z"
<da...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, no can do. The queue for beating B&B to pulp is already up to
number 15 zillion. I got number 15 zillion and 1, hope that's OK. :-)

David Johnston

unread,
May 16, 2004, 7:47:19 PM5/16/04
to
On 14 May 2004 18:43:01 -0700, ksa...@pierce.ctc.edu (Kurt Sample)
wrote:

Enterprise, please. Star Trek was cancelled in the 60s.


Message has been deleted

Numan

unread,
May 18, 2004, 1:23:28 PM5/18/04
to

"Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:150520041812237158%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...

Yes, that experiment did kind of bomb. Huh.


Christopher

unread,
May 18, 2004, 9:12:45 PM5/18/04
to
Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message news:<150520041812237158%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>...> Besides, the topic is wrong.

>
> Star Trek IS not dead ... Star Trek WAS dead the minute Beavis &
> Butthead took over and the final nail in the coffin was their insane
> idea of creating a non-Trek Star Trek show. :-\

B&B produced Star Trek: First Contact, that was a good movie, was it
not?

They also helped create many great TNG episodes ------- were they poor
in quality? Nope.

My point: They did a lot of great things for Star Trek, but a lot of
poor things as well.

Enterprise and Voyager was really their main failures, although I'd
rather watch a Voyager episode than Enterprise anyday. Watching Ent
should be a human rights abuse on the UN charter, not playing with
naked Iraqi soldiers.

Star Trek will never be dead since DS9 is showing again on Spike TV.

Merrick Baldelli

unread,
May 18, 2004, 11:03:38 PM5/18/04
to
On 18 May 2004 18:12:45 -0700, dark...@att.net (Christopher) wrote:

>B&B produced Star Trek: First Contact, that was a good movie, was it
>not?

Not as good as, say, TWoK and TVH.

>They also helped create many great TNG episodes ------- were they poor
>in quality? Nope.

That's also because Brannon Braga wasn't in charge and at the
time was nothing more than a story editor.

>My point: They did a lot of great things for Star Trek, but a lot of
>poor things as well.

Yes, but at this point, it's beginning to look like more bad
things are being produced than good things. This is compounded by the
fact that while I was still watching, they had NOBODIES who worked as
set Production Assistants writing stories. Seems to me, that with all
the writers out there, some of which they were of some quality and
willing to write pro bono if the know how to approach them -- they
(Beavis & Butthead) could get SOMEONE to assist them in writing
stories, instead of grabbing for nobodies in order to write credible
stories.
However, it's also painfully clear by this failure -- that
*someone's* ego is too big for their own good and prevents them from
being able to hire credible sci-fi writers.

>Enterprise and Voyager was really their main failures, although I'd
>rather watch a Voyager episode than Enterprise anyday. Watching Ent
>should be a human rights abuse on the UN charter, not playing with
>naked Iraqi soldiers.

Interesting pop analogy you have going there. I prefer just
sticking with SUCKFEST, myself.

>Star Trek will never be dead since DS9 is showing again on Spike TV.

And it seems like always, every time I tune in Spike, DS9 is
showing the same episodes I've seen on the station already. Sad too,
considering there are many other episodes I haven't seen.


--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/
/ /

Anybody

unread,
May 19, 2004, 2:13:23 AM5/19/04
to
In article <kErqc.9786$LD2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, "Numan"
<tbrd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:150520041812237158%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >

> > True. Everyone except me is an idiot. ;-)
> >
> > Besides, the topic is wrong.
> >
> > Star Trek IS not dead ... Star Trek WAS dead the minute Beavis &
> > Butthead took over and the final nail in the coffin was their insane
> > idea of creating a non-Trek Star Trek show. :-\
>
> Yes, that experiment did kind of bomb. Huh.

Well, DUH!!!
It was a truely idiotic idea BEFORE they even had it. Actually going
ahead and trying it was simply insane.

J44xm

unread,
May 19, 2004, 4:56:53 PM5/19/04
to
["Merrick Baldelli"; Wed, 19 May 2004 03:03:38 GMT]

> And it seems like always, every time I tune in Spike, DS9 is showing
> the same episodes I've seen on the station already. Sad too,
> considering there are many other episodes I haven't seen.

Well, they're showing the series in order weekday evenings at 6 and 7 PM
CST. FYI.
--
J44xm

J44xm

unread,
May 19, 2004, 8:32:41 PM5/19/04
to
["J44xm"; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:56:53 GMT]

> Well, they're showing the series in order weekday evenings at 6 and 7 PM
> CST. FYI.

But it seems they freakin' skipped BOTH PARTS of "The Maquis"! What, did
they show them during the Friday "uncut" episodes instead? I'm quite
frustrated ...
--
J44xm

Merrick Baldelli

unread,
May 19, 2004, 11:00:13 PM5/19/04
to

And isn't it ironic that I'm supposed to be working at that
time when they're actually being shown. Such is the way of my life.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages